Turn on "showdead" in account settings. This will show comments from banned users.
I am only guessing they were autobanned. Comment history from the time of the banning doesn't show anything particular egregious that would trigger a manual ban.
I think his point is that they're all clones, or running American OS, or selling excellent quality commodities (in the sense that as a designer or engineer I don't care much about the part past its specs)
Lenovo -> IBM
Samsung + Huawei -> Google
SSD, screens, ram -> commodity
You might balk at SSDs being mere commodities (or screens for that matter). Surely Samsung SSDs and screens are better! Sure, and as a designer I might care. But I probably wouldn't, past the promised MTBF, viewing angle and contrast ratio.
Put the SSD+display+CPU together and you get, for better or worse[1] , a largely American computing device. You don't get a BBC micro or an Acorn. Or a Setun.
Nintendo is the only one who obviously stands out as different, making a unique computing device (albeit with an American CPU). Although even the N64 was largely an American design (SGI)
[1] I think worse, in the sense that everything is a Unix monoculture.
If all those things are just commodities, then surely the OS, CPU, and really every single low level aspect of a computer could be considered a commodity as well? Nobody's buying a PS4 because it runs a FreeBSD derived OS, nor are people buying the Nintendo Switch because of it's ARM architecture or that it has a Tegra X1 from Nvidia inside.
Components like the CPU and OS might be designed in America, but it's the higher level software development and hardware design that takes these largely off the shelf parts and assembles them into an actual product, and in the case of Nintendo that happens in Kyoto, not Silicon Valley. Is that really any different from say, assembling a piece of furniture out of materials and components sourced from around the world? Without the product design and assembly all you'll have is a collection of wood and nails lying about.
Same with the N64 - it might have been an SGI designed system at it's core, but through the guidance of Nintendo which developed the higher level industrial design of the console, the controller, the concept of using carts over discs, some of the more lower level OS functions, and of course the user facing software like Mario 64, etc. All the things that actually make the N64 the N64. SGI didn't decide to make a games console all on their own.
Why would I balk at that? SSDs, screens, RAM, CPUs, GPUs, laptops, phones, and are all commodities. I don't care about any of them past their specs and build quality.
> Samsung + Huawei -> Google
Oh come on. That's some serious reaching to prove your point right there.
Really? I own a Huawei and AFAICT, the OS / services (eg the kernel, android, Google play services) are basically the same as what would run on eg a Google pixel.
> Oh come on. That's some serious reaching to prove your point right there.
On the software front it's right on the mark though. Those devices wouldn't be much without Google. I know that Samsung in particular has had some other platforms (Bada? Tizen?) to try to break that dependency, but correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think it's been successful. AFAIK Google also has some kind of hardware requirements posed on the OEMs, so they influence hardware design this way.
Not in the slightest. Samsung tried to launch products that were rejected by Google via OEM licensing. Their commercial offerings are subject to external rules.
Every company's products are subject to external rules. All these huge companies constantly fight in court over trademarks, intellectual property, and so on. The products were not "rejected by Google", they were rejected by a court somewhere. And Google are at the receiving end of many such cases themselves, in many jurisdictions:
[edit:] Third law states 0K is impossible. That's the obvious and simplest answer. So everything bellow assumes the limit as you approach 0K.
I think in that case you reach a paradox because temperature is a quantity (typically) defined in thermodynamics, i.e. systems in equilibrium. A metastable glass is not in its ground state, therefore not in equilibrium, therefore not technically within the purview of thermo. This might seem like a cop out, but a similar question was asked in my qualifier. The answer, glass is not technically described my thermo and at 0K the whole thing breaks down [1]
Sure we still talk about entropy and temperature of glass, but it's stretching the definitions.
Another way to look at it, though, is that at 0K there is only one state available to the system (even though it is a glassy one). Therefore call the glass a new state of matter, and set S=0. If that feels weird because it's not the ground state, consider that glass' constituents, Si and O, are not in a ground state either, that'd be Fe. You don't have any problems dealing with metastable Si and O, do you? Either way, 0K makes no sense!
Also, it's weird (actually wrong) to even think about materials at 0K. In classical thermo your heat capacity is zero. In modern physics your atoms' "positions'" are fully determined, therefore their "momentum" is fully undetermined. So 0K is a state that makes zero sense.
[1] I forget the question. I think it was like this: the entropy of glass has a greater slope than the crystal, therefore, if you cool the glass low enough it will achieve a lower entropy than the crystal. How can a glass have lower S than its crystal state?
